If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Not Born This Way

Florida Family Association would like to fly more banners to counter Gaga’s hedonistic, Godless message at more concerts. You can click here to see the schedule Ladygaga.com... The goal is not to fly banners at every concert but at enough concerts to make a difference.

Re: Not Born This Way

Guys! Great news! My husband and I were at a Lady Gaga concert and we were talking about how we wished we were not born gay. Then, and you won't believe this, a plane flies over the stadium saying "Not born this way". And then we realized it, neither of us is gay at all! We just thought we were because of a song that came out four years into our relationship! That plane really made a signicant difference. Thank you you Florida Family Association!

Re: Not Born This Way

Originally Posted by youngoutlaw

I would have been more impressed if they had done it in skywriting instead of a banner.

The last two times we've been at Disney World, they've had skywriters putting conservative messages up in the sky. I don't recall exactly, but I think they were all supposed to be anti-abortion messages. (Why this is a message to put above Disney World is an open question.) But due to the air currents or winds or whatnot, they had real trouble getting that message up there. They maybe could get ten letters made before the first one would start breaking apart and become unreadable. So I have a few photos of skywriting saying things like "(something) WITH LIFE" and "(something) A CHILD". I'm assuming the messages were lost on everybody.

Re: Not Born This Way

Originally Posted by G-Lexington

The last two times we've been at Disney World, they've had skywriters putting conservative messages up in the sky. I don't recall exactly, but I think they were all supposed to be anti-abortion messages. (Why this is a message to put above Disney World is an open question.) But due to the air currents or winds or whatnot, they had real trouble getting that message up there. They maybe could get ten letters made before the first one would start breaking apart and become unreadable. So I have a few photos of skywriting saying things like "(something) WITH LIFE" and "(something) A CHILD". I'm assuming the messages were lost on everybody.

Lex

If they had real balls they'd skydive without a parachute and write the message in the air with silly foam as they drop on the sure knowledge that God will approve and not let them hit the ground very hard.

Re: Not Born This Way

They do make a valid scientific point. Homosexuality has never been conclusively linked to genetics. Maybe they are simply trying to claim that their homosexuality was more environmental than anything. Just a thought.

Re: Not Born This Way

Originally Posted by youfiad

They do make a valid scientific point. Homosexuality has never been conclusively linked to genetics. Maybe they are simply trying to claim that their homosexuality was more environmental than anything. Just a thought.

Trust me youfiad... any organization in the U.S. with "family" in the title that is saying something like "gays aren't born gay" is doing it for a reason that has nothing to do with scientific impartiality and rational discussion.

Re: Not Born This Way

I wasn't defending their action since the message behind it is obvious.

I'm just saying that the "I was born this way" argument from the gay community doesn't really help our cause.

The main thing to focus on is that there is nothing wrong with being gay, whether we were born that way or not.

We can focus on both at once. I know many people who personally are uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion but still acknowledge that women should have reproductive freedoms and the ability to make their own choices.

Or putting it another way-- we can't (and probably shouldn't) try to convince every single person who struggles with extreme bias or a lifetime of prejudice to "love gay people", but to wake up to their civic duty that they don't have to like someone to agree they should have equal rights in society.

The people who come from the intent you acknowledge that groups like this have believe that being gay is totally wrong, and so if it's a choice-- they believe it's a choice you should be pressured in as many social and legal and moral ways as possible to change your mind about. The problem of course being-- it's not a choice.

Re: Not Born This Way

The danger in pushing the "born this way" argument is that it suggests "I can't help it". So once scientists determine the cause of homosexuality, the natural response is "well, good news - now you CAN help it!" and they can start working on "fixing" us. I know that's not the point of the "born this way" argument but I do feel it could easily lead in that direction.

Re: Not Born This Way

Throwing "I was born this way" at people might be interpret that you would change if you could. It's not a positive thing at all.

Or that it's a genetic disease if we were born this way.

You being gay from genetics or environment can both be seen in negative or positive light.

People who are stuck in seeing homosexuality as a bad thing will just interpret the gay gene in a negative way since diseases and other negative features can be genetic.

It's a waste of time argument.

Us not being born gay doesn't make it wrong (I'm not claiming that's the case though)

Laufey I think this may be an issue where you need to acknowledge that you don't live in a country where there is a major, political powerful religious alliance pushing concepts like you can reform through prayer and religious intervention and become ex-gay.

Re: Not Born This Way

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

Laufey I think this may be an issue where you need to acknowledge that you don't live in a country where there is a major, political powerful religious alliance pushing concepts like you can reform through prayer and religious intervention and become ex-gay.

Re: Not Born This Way

I wasn't saying it is. I'm just saying you can interpret it being genetic both in a negative and a positive way. Just like you can interpret things the environment shapes both negative and positive.

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

Nope. The environment argument is thoroughly negative. The genetics/biological one is not (and this refers to sexuality in general).

Please explain to me why being gay is suddenly bad just because it's roots are other than genetic?

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

Who cares what those people think? This is about gaining legitimacy in society in the overall population. It's futile trying to explain science and reason to those who are entrenched in their outmoded ideas. Some people are more open to having their mind change, but the environment argument does nothing but hurt.

Re: Not Born This Way

Something you weren't born with can still be hard-wired. So sexuality not being set in stone when you are born doesn't necessarily mean that it's gonna be flexible after it's formed.

And the environment argument is entirely negative. It infers a choice and some other trauma like having an alcoholic father.

Changes from environmental factors aren't always negative they can be positive too. Just because you are too simple minded to see trauma and choice as the only two possibilities on the environmental side doesn't mean everybody else think the same way.

Re: Not Born This Way

I didn't choose to be gay nor was it something in the environment that made me gay.

It is at least partly. Or else all identical twins would have the same sexuality.

If one twin is gay the other one is more likely to be also... but it's not a sure thing.

Suggesting sexuality is from both genetic and environmental factors.

Anyway I'm not really on the environmental side here I'm just saying that it doesn't make the nature of homosexual behavior worse or better depending on the roots. When you fuck a guy it's the same thing no matter if it comes from your genes or someplace else.

Re: Not Born This Way

I've never been a fan of the "I was born this way" argument from our community.

Lady Gaga's song takes it even further with "same DNA" (that line always makes me giggle).

Arguing that something that is genetic is a disease is like saying that having green eyes is a disease. Diseases tend to impede the chances of survival or function of the organism. Homosexuality does neither of those. However, there are certain environmental factors that are classified as a disease that can proliferate within the gay communit, but that is completely independant of being gay. (HIV-AIDS)

I am not a fan of the "I was born this way" argument either since it makes assumptions that are presently unknown. As far as I know, I haven't always been attracted to men as I am not, and if it were completely genetic, I would presume that the rate of homosexuality within twins would be higher than roughly 20%.

Nevertheless, even if being homosexuality was 100% a choice (which I believe is a completely asinine statement as it leaves us open to attack anybody for any choice that they make in their life whether or not it has a direct impact on those around them), it isn't up to anybody to stop us from "choosing". What happened to personal freedoms? Did we rename the country to America, the land of social conformity?

Re: Not Born This Way

Originally Posted by youfiad

Arguing that something that is genetic is a disease is like saying that having green eyes is a disease. Diseases tend to impede the chances of survival or function of the organism. Homosexuality does neither of those. However, there are certain environmental factors that are classified as a disease that can proliferate within the gay communit, but that is completely independant of being gay. (HIV-AIDS)

I am not a fan of the "I was born this way" argument either since it makes assumptions that are presently unknown. As far as I know, I haven't always been attracted to men as I am not, and if it were completely genetic, I would presume that the rate of homosexuality within twins would be higher than roughly 20%.

Nevertheless, even if being homosexuality was 100% a choice (which I believe is a completely asinine statement as it leaves us open to attack anybody for any choice that they make in their life whether or not it has a direct impact on those around them), it isn't up to anybody to stop us from "choosing". What happened to personal freedoms? Did we rename the country to America, the land of social conformity?

This is like saying breast cancer isn't genetic because one sister gets it and the other doesn't, though. Of course everything is an intermix of genetic and environmental. But two twins raised in the same house would have also had incredible overlap in the environmental factors. And when you say 20% I'm not sure if you're referring to all twins, fraternal twins (who are not genetically identical), or identical twins. The study I saw with identical twins was 60%.

Re: Not Born This Way

Originally Posted by youfiad

Brest cancer isn't genetic.... There are certain people who have predispositions to cancer, but nobody inherits cancer....

It has a very strong tendency to run in families. To the point where doctors will entirely change their treatment or recommended medicines for a particular woman who has a sister or mother or aunt who had breast cancer if the treatment in question is at all correlated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

Are you defining genetic as "can only possibly manifest strictly through genes and by no other factor?" Because that is not the definition I've been using. Many genes can be present but remain dormant, for most or all of a person's lifetime. That doesn't mean the trait in question isn't genetic if it appears.

Re: Not Born This Way

It absolutely isn't. And that proves nothing for the silly environment argument.

No it doesn't. The environment argument has been debunked a thousand times over.

Nice rapid fire edit. Still doesn't justify the argument. And the environment argument is absolutely negative for the gay community. And fucking a guy? Is that all homosexuality is? Just about sex?

No, actually, it really does prove that environment plays a role, because identical twins are identical genetically. They should be either both gay, or both straight a 100% of the time. That they aren't, is an absolute and undeniable proof that whatever genetic factors are at play, they are not the exclusive reason for homosexuality.

I have no problem with that, frankly. I do think whatever causes our sexuality to become what it is, happens in such early stages, that the "born this way" phrase totally applies. It isn't meant to be taken literally anyway. All it means is, "this is me, and this is who I am. I did not choose it and I am not ashamed of it". We don't need to be willfully blind to reality just so we don't lose ground. That's the other side's modus operandi, and we're better than that.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Not Born This Way

Originally Posted by Hard-up1

Buzz, they are different.

Pattern baldness is genetic.

Other types of alopecia may be reactions to events in the health of the person, or environmentally induced.

And then there are people who have weak hair genetically who may lose it because the weak hair was susceptible to coming out under stresses that do not cause baldness in a person with healthy hair genes.

So, a condition can be genetic, environmental, or mixed.

Yes of course... but I'm confused, does this somehow change the fact that while also related to environment, diet, and lifestyle... many things like breast cancers run in families at correlations too strong to not have genetic linkages?

I'm a bit confused as I have never claimed that either homosexuality or cancer are 100% genetic-- but it's fairly clear to me based on the medical evidence that there are strong genetic factors involved.

Re: Not Born This Way

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

It has a very strong tendency to run in families. To the point where doctors will entirely change their treatment or recommended medicines for a particular woman who has a sister or mother or aunt who had breast cancer if the treatment in question is at all correlated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

Are you defining genetic as "can only possibly manifest strictly through genes and by no other factor?" Because that is not the definition I've been using. Many genes can be present but remain dormant, for most or all of a person's lifetime. That doesn't mean the trait in question isn't genetic if it appears.

Cancer in general has a tendancy to run in families, that is because genetic mutations are heritable from generation to generation. Our bodies spend a lot of the genetic material in controling cell grown and replication. If a person has accumulated or has had enough genes that control this function, they will most likely develope cancer. That trend is further perpetuated in cancer prone families where each child is born with already defective genes that control these cellular functions. One identical twin may go his/her entire life without mutating enough genes, whereas another, exposed to bad luck and certain environmental factions may unfortunately develop enough mutations to induce cancer.

The same logic could be applied to homosexuality. This is purely speculative of course, but I feel highly plausable

Re: Not Born This Way

It absolutely does not. There is still a high chance the other twin may be gay and that plays more into the biological argument.

I have a major problem with it because it infers that "ex-gay therapy" may be able to "change" sexuality... as it is just a "environmental issue" that can be repaired.

Giancarlo, you are not paying attention. Identical twins are genetically identical. They are literally the same person physically. The genetic predisposition is there, which is why there is a strong chance that if one is gay, then the other should be too. But if it were only genetic, only nature, with no nurture, then it would be absolutely, and with no exception, that both twins would share the same sexuality. And therefore that they do not always do, is an absolute proof that homosexuality, while certainly having a major genetic component, is not entirely genetic. Whether you have a major problem with it or not, it is what it is.

Nobody is claiming it is "JUST" an environmental issue. But clearly environment plays a part. And the only argument we need about why ex-gay therapy doesn't work is that it simply doesn't and never has. Those that claim to have been "cured" are always deeply religious and an obvious mockery of the human condition.

But arguing with facts gets you nowhere. We may not know the factors that define sexuality, but we do know how genetics works, and identical twins are proof that genetics isn't the beginning and end of homosexuality. Unlike those that try to "cure" us, we believe in science, don't we?

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Not Born This Way

I think that many people here are confused at how complex genetics really is. There has been recent research that has looked at the epigenetic factors of homosexuality. Epigenetics is a fascinating area of biology that governs a wide range of diversity within identical twins. Also, you guys must realize that only a small fraction of the genome encodes for genes, the rest, according to the Encode project released mid last year, controls the time, rate and other factors of expressing these genes. It's really complex. I think arguing the causes of homosexuality is neither productive nor intelligent. It is simply an unknown cause. Anyone who claims otherwise deserves the title for Biggest Douche of the Year

Re: Not Born This Way

Giancarlo.

It is not a VERSUS situation. Nobody with any sense is denying the biological factor. In fact, it probably plays MOST of the part. But it does not play ALL of it, and you can't debunk the nurture part, because identical twins make it non-debunkable. They prove it without a shadow of doubt, without any hope of anyone in any way debunking it. It's a fact. There is some component that's nurture. It might be 1% - I doubt it's more than 10% - but it is there.

Again - not nature VERSUS nurture, but nature AND nurture. MORE nature and LESS nurture. But not ONLY nature. Accept it and move on, or give me a logical reason why two completely identical human beings could have differing sexualities.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe